Cutting horses are employed to so control the movement of a calf which has been separated from a herd of cattle as to confine the calf to a localized area. This is accomplished by continuously confronting the calf in a head-on manner and thereby thwarting its efforts to escape from the area in which it is thus penned by the cutting horse.
Training a horse to stay in front of, and continuously face, an erratically moving calf can be a time-consuming task; and it is extremely expensive when, as is conventional, live animals are employed in the training process.
The procurement and maintenance of the cattle is in itself expensive. Also, calves must be replaced at frequent intervals because they become accustomed to the cutting exercise and then move in a predictable, often lethargic manner which makes them useless for training, or demonstrating the abilities of, a cutting horse.
Furthermore, the maneuvers of a live calf can, in general, not be oontrolled in a manner which affords the maximum contribution to the education of the cutting horse.
Because of the drawbacks of using live animals, a number of mechanical devices for training horses to perform the tasks identified above have been proposed. Those of which I am aware are disclosed in the following U.S. Pat. Nos. : 2,819,900 issued Jan. 14, 1958, to Brackett for CALF-ROPING AMUSEMENT DEVICE; 3,324,832 issued June 13, 1967, to McCain for ROPING HORSE TRAINING DEVICE; 3,802,706 issued Apr. 9, 1974, to Hamm for MOTORIZED ROPING STEER; 3,962,995 issued June 15, 1976, to Brinson for APPARATUS FOR TRAINING CUTTING HORSES; 4,266,779 issued May 12, 1981, to English for ANIMATED ROPING TRAINING APPARATUS; and 4,286,788 issued Sept. 1, 1981, to Simington et al. for MECHANICAL ROPING STEER.
These heretofore proposed training devices are in many cases unacceptably complex. Among the devices with that disadvantage are those disclosed in the above-cited patents to McCain, Hamm, Brinson, and Simington et al.
The McCain device, for example, requires a complex track system, a reversible motor, and reduction gearing, all of which would make that device too expensive for many trainers.
Hamm employs a motorized, artificial animal which, again, would be too expensive to be within the reach of many trainers because of the large number of parts in the simulated animal. Furthermore, the gasoline engine Hamm employs to propel his artificial animal is undesirable because of the noise and fumes it would generate, particularly in an indoor arena (indoor arenas are often employed in training cutting horses).
Brinson's device would also be too expensive for many trainers because of the hydraulic system it requires. Furthermore, that device has an artificial animal support system which is undesirable as it has a number of components and sharp corners that might cause injury if struck by a horse being trained.
The Simington et al device is more complex than would in many cases be acceptable because of its articulated, artificial animal and the mechanism which is employed to suspend and animate that animal. Furthermore, that mechanism is fragile and could easily be damaged if it were run into by the animal being trained.
Another disadvantage of heretofore proposed, mechanical horse training devices is that the simulated animal they employ can not be moved back-and-forth or otherwise maneuvered with that degree of flexibility which is needed to properly train a cutting horse. Heretofore proposed devices that fall into this category are those disclosed in the above-cited patents to Brackett, Hamm, English, and Simington et al.